Revision differences

Document history

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes various use cases for Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) and provides requirements such ...

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes various use cases for Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) and provides requirements such that protocol mechanisms allow for simplified detection of forwarding failures.

These use cases support S-BFD, which is a simplified mechanism for using BFD with a large proportion of negotiation aspects eliminated, accelerating the establishment of a BFD session. The benefits of S-BFD include quick provisioning, as well as improved control and flexibility for network nodes initiating path monitoring.')

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan

2016-05-04

07

Alissa Cooper

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper

2016-05-04

07

Kathleen Moriarty

[Ballot comment]Shouldn't Requirement #10 explicitly state active and passive attacks? That way you cover interception and passive listening too.

2016-05-04

07

Kathleen Moriarty

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty

2016-05-04

07

Carlos Pignataro

New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-07.txt

2016-05-04

06

Ben Campbell

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell

2016-05-03

06

Terry Manderson

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson

2016-05-03

06

Deborah Brungard

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard

2016-05-03

06

Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell

2016-05-03

06

Mirja Kühlewind

[Ballot comment]While this document has a security requirement, I believe there is also a risk of misconfiguration: if no handshake is performed, a node ...

[Ballot comment]While this document has a security requirement, I believe there is also a risk of misconfiguration: if no handshake is performed, a node might send S-BFD packets to a receiver that does not exists or is not aware of it or sits at a different part of the network that is somewhere else than expected which can overload the network accidentally. Should this be mentioned in this doc (or somewhere else... or both)?

2016-05-03

06

Mirja Kühlewind

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind

[Ballot comment]1) Sec 3.7: This section describes BFD Fault Isolation. It isn't clear to me that the S-BFD base spec has addressed this case at all. More clarification would be nice - either indicating that this use-case wasn't handled or having a small pointer to how it was.

2016-05-02

06

Alia Atlas

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-04.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't ...

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-04.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The IESG has received a request from the Bidirectional ForwardingDetection WG (bfd) to consider the following document:- 'Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Use Case' <draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-04.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicitsfinal comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to theietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-04-12. Exceptionally, comments may besent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain thebeginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

This document provides various use cases for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) and various requirements such that extensions could be developed to allow for simplified detection of forwarding failures.

: Document Writeup for Working Group Documents: : As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.: : Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.: : (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet: Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper: type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case is targeted for Informational status, whichis appropriate since it does not specify any normative changes to existingprotocols and simply describes the circumstances motivating the Seamless BFDfeature.

: (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.: Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be: found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval: announcement contains the following sections:: : Technical Summary:

For -base: This document defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating the path monitoring.

For -ip: Seamless BFD defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating the path monitoring.

For -use-case: Seamless BFD defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating the path monitoring.

This document provides various use cases for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) such that extensions could be developed to allow for simplified detection of forwarding failures.

: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction: of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies: in the abstract or introduction.: : Working Group Summary:

(For all documents.)This document was discussed at length with significant participation of theactive members of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) WorkingGroup. The use cases are seen to enable the use of core BFD technologies ina fashion that leverages existing implementations and protocol machinerywhile providing a simplified and largely stateless infrastructure forcontinuity testing. The high participation of the Working Group has ensuredthat the technical aspects of this mechanism have been thoroughly discussed.

: Document Quality:

This document has been subject to multiple Working Group reviews andincludes participation from several large vendors. Many of these vendorshave implementations in progress for this feature.

: Personnel:: : Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

: (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the: Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for: publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The shepherd has participated in multiple review cycles of the documentswith the authors with attention toward reviewing technical detail andcleanliness of language. The consensus of the Working Group is that thedocuments are ready to progress.

: (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth: of the reviews that have been performed?

Review of the documents has included discussion in the context of runningthis feature in an MPLS LSP environment. Several of the authors are alsoregular participants in the IETF mpls Working Group. It is the shepherd'sbelief that this area has been adequately reviewed.

The security aspects of these documents have been discussed at length, withattention given toward spoofing attacks that may elicit bad behaviors in theprotocol. It is the shepherd's belief that security aspects have receivedsufficient Working Group scrutiny. Since these documents utilize existingBFD security mechanisms, it is generally believed that those mechanismcontinue to provide appropriate security in the context of Seamless BFD.

Transport considerations were also part of the extended discussion ofSeamless BFD. In particular, since Seamless BFD is effectively stateless,the existing mechanisms documented in RFC 5880 to regulate the rate ofpackets is less effective. Implementations of Seamless BFD Reflectors arefree to provide rate limiting of their responses, but must do so with regardto a peak and potentially unknown load from an unknown number of SeamlessBFD Initiators.

Seamless BFD Reflectors may further control their load through filtering onSource IP or validation of Destination IP (e.g. via consulting routing oraccess control lists). See draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip, SecurityConsiderations.

: (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader: perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or: internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

Since Seamless BFD is largely building on experience gained in security andtransport considerations from the core BFD standards, no specific additionalreview had been previously requested.

: (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has: with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be: aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of: the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any: event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still: wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No issues. It is the Shepherd's opinion that the issues have beenthoroughly discussed.

: (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures: required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have: already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

: (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,: summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

These appear to be Cisco's usual RAND terms and did not elicit any concernfrom the Working Group.

: (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the: strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the: WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Strong consensus from active members of the Working Group.

: (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme: discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email: messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email: because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

: (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.: (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).: Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

None of substance. The open nits are against referenced I-Ds of laterversions.

: (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,: such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

: (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either: normative or informative?

Yes.

: (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for: advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references: exist, what is the plan for their completion?

draft-geib-segment-routing-oam-usecase is referenced by the Seamless BFD usecase document and is targeted for the spring Working Group. The status ofthat document is Informational. It is unclear to the Shepherd whether thatdocument will eventually be adopted and progressed within the spring WorkingGroup as its purpose is to similarly document use cases appropriate to thatWorking Group's charter.

Two things may be done:1. Hold the Seamless BFD Use Case document in REF state pending resolution.2. Move the reference to that document in the Seamless BFD Use Case documentto be an Informative reference.

It is the Shepherd's belief that 2 may be the appropriate response.

: (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If: so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last: Call procedure.

No.

: (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing: RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract,: and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract: and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the: relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this: information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it: unnecessary.

The Seamless BFD base document will update RFC 5880 and is correctly flaggedas having done so.

: (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations: section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the: document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are: associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that: any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly: created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial: contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations: are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see: RFC 5226).

The Seamless BFD IP document has gone through early allocation for a UDPport number. This number is stably being used by implementors for thisfeature. It is not expected that there will be further Considerations inthat document.

The other two documents have no IANA Considerations.

: (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future: allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in: selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

: (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd: to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML: code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.

It should be noted that there will be impact on BFD Yang module work that isin progress with the BFD Yang Design Team. They have been notified toconsider the impact of these drafts upon their work.

While there is a BFD MIB (RFCs 7330, 7331) covering BFD functionality, noWorking Group work is currently targeted for the management of Seamless BFDvia SNMP. It is the Shepherd's opinion that if such work is of interestthat there exists sufficient flexibility in the published MIBs toaccommodate the inclusion of management for Seamless BFD, although therewould be an augmentation MIB required to cover the Seamless BFD Reflectorconfiguration and transport policy.

2015-07-30

02

Jeffrey Haas

Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana

2015-07-30

02

Jeffrey Haas

IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up

2015-07-30

02

Jeffrey Haas

IESG state changed to Publication Requested

2015-07-30

02

Jeffrey Haas

IESG process started in state Publication Requested

2015-07-30

02

Jeffrey Haas

IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document